Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Newborn babies: not persons, and not fully human – P. Z. Myers

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Please respond by 12:01 a.m. on Friday, 21 January 2011 (GMT)

P. Z. Myers is one of the 25 most influential living atheists. He is also on record as saying that he doesn’t believe that newborn babies are fully human, and he makes it clear that he doesn’t regard them as persons, either. Almost no-one noticed when P. Z. Myers made these utterances, because they were made in a comment on one of his recent posts. (See here for P.Z. Myers’ post, here for one reader’s comment and here for P. Z. Myers’ reply, in which he makes his own views plain.) So, what exactly did P. Z. say? In response to a reader who claimed that there is one very easily defined line between personhood and non-personhood – namely, birth – P. Z. Myers replied:

Nope, birth is also arbitrary, and it has not been even a cultural universal that newborns are regarded as fully human.

I’ve had a few. They weren’t.

Let me state at the outset that I have no doubt that P. Z. Myers is a good father; but that is not the issue here. His views on newborn babies are the issue.

For the benefit of readers, here is a list of the 25 most influential living atheists:

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Stephen Hawking, Steven Pinker, Michael Shermer, Peter Singer, Steven Weinberg, Paul Kurtz, Lawrence Krauss, Edward O. Wilson, P. Z. Myers, James Randi, Jennifer Michael Hecht, Peter Atkins, John Brockman, Philip Pullman, Barbara Forrest, David Sloan Wilson, Ray Kurzweil, William B. (“Will”) Provine, Kai Nielsen, Susan Blackmore and Richard Carrier.

The purpose of my post today is to ask each of the 25 most influential living atheists five simple questions:

(a) Do you believe that a newborn baby is fully human? Yes/No (please see Question 1 below if you find it difficult to give a clear answer to this question).

(b) Do you believe that a newborn baby is a person? Yes/No (please see Questions 1 and 2 below if you find it difficult to give a clear answer to this question).

(c) Do you believe that a newborn baby has a right to life? Yes/No (please see Questions 1 and 3 below if you find it difficult to give a clear answer to this question).

(d) Do you believe that every human person has a duty towards newborn babies, to refrain from killing them? Yes/No (please see Questions 1, 4, 5 and 6 below if you find it difficult to give a clear answer to this question).

(e) Do you believe that killing a newborn baby is just as wrong as killing an adult? Yes/No (please see Questions 1 and 7 below if you find it difficult to give a clear answer to this question).

I’m asking these questions, because I think the world has a right to know how the 25 most influential living atheists view newborn babies. The moral status of newborn babies is an ethical issue of vital importance, and I’d like to know what the world’s leading atheists think about this subject. Because I’m a generous person, I’m giving them four days to answer my five simple questions. The countdown ends at 12:01 a.m. (one minute past midnight) on Friday, 21 January, 2011, Greenwich Mean Time (UTC). I think that’s quite enough time for the word to get around, and for people to respond.

And in case some of these atheists object that they’re too busy to respond, let me state that I will happily accept, in good faith, responses written on their behalf by friends, acquaintances, personal assistants or people who have read their books and can quote relevant passages, complete with publication details and page numbers. If someone responding on behalf of an influential atheist wishes to preserve his/her anonymity, he/she is free to use a pseudonym. Please note, however, that I will not be imputing views to influential atheists on the basis of anonymous responses. That would be irresponsible.

To respond to my five questions, all you need to do is write a brief comment at the end of this post – for example:
(a) Yes. (b) No. (c) No. (d) No. (e) No.
Note: If you are replying on behalf of an influential atheist, please list his/her name, your name (if you are willing to give it) and your connection with the atheist in question.

Here are my answers to some questions which I anticipate that people will ask about my quiz:

Question 1. How do you define “fully human,” “person,” “right to life” and “wrong”? I don’t. We’re all grown-ups here. I’m quite happy to let you use your own definitions.

Question 2. What if I believe that a newborn baby is neither clearly a person nor clearly a non-person, but somewhere in between? In that case, please answer “Gray” to question (b) above.

Question 3. What if I believe that talk of “rights” is meaningless nonsense, for babies and adults alike? In that case, please answer “No, and I don’t believe adults do either” to question (c) above.

Question 4. What if I believe that our duties towards babies and adults alike are defined by the society we happen to live in? In that case, please answer “No” to question (d) above. Obviously if you believe that, then you believe that people living in a society which tolerates infanticide don’t have a duty towards newborn babies, to refrain from killing them.

Question 5. What if I believe that we have a duty to refrain from killing newborn babies, not because we have a duty towards the babies as such, but because it would cause great anguish to their parents if they were killed? In that case, please answer “No” to question (d) above. I’m asking you whether you believe we have a duty towards the babies, to refrain from killing them. I’m not asking about duties towards their parents.

Question 6. What if I believe that we normally have a duty towards newborn babies, to refrain from killing them, but that it may be OK in exceptional circumstances – e.g. if the baby is suffering excruciating pain, or is very severely deformed? In that case, please answer “Yes (qualified)” to question (d) above.

Question 7. What if I believe that killing a newborn baby is a terrible, terrible thing, but that killing an adult is even worse? In that case, please answer “No” to question (e) above.

Question 8. Don’t you know that there is very little myelin in a newborn baby’s brain? Don’t you know that a newborn baby lacks an autobiographical memory, a concept of self and a theory of mind? Sure I do. You’re not telling me anything new; I didn’t come down in the last shower. All I want is an answer to the five questions I listed above, from the 25 most influential living atheists.

Question 9. What is the relevance of all this to Intelligent Design? Simple. Many of these influential atheists are on the record as saying that we can go on behaving ethically, even if there is no Designer of life and the cosmos. Fine. Here’s a splendid test case: the moral status of newborn babies, and our obligations towards them. I’d like to see how they answer my questionnaire, and I can assure these atheists that a lot of people will be watching.

Question 10. What if I refuse to answer your questionnaire? Fine. If you do not respond, and if no-one responds on your behalf, I shall assume by default that your responses are: (a) Yes. (b) No. (c) No. (d) No. (e) No. Why? Because that’s about the most consistent set of responses that I can conceive of an atheist making, if he/she were also a materialist. Please note that I said “assume.” I did not say that I would impute those views to influential atheists who choose not to respond. There’s a very big difference.

Question 11. Are you seriously suggesting that a newborn baby has the same rights as an adult? What about the right to drive or vote? Reply: in this questionnaire, you are being asked about one right only: the right to life. The question I’m asking is: do you believe that a newborn human baby has a right to life or not? It is perfectly obvious that newborn babies don’t have the right to drive, which isn’t a natural human right in any case.

Question 12. Are you implying that people who don’t believe newborn babies are persons support infanticide? No. Let me be quite clear about that. I simply want to know what the world’s most influential atheists think about the moral status of newborn babies.

Finally, let me remind readers that this post is about newborn babies. It is not about the morality of abortion, or about the moral status of an embryo or fetus. I would like to ask readers to keep their comments to the point.

UPDATE: THREE of the 25 most influential living atheists (Professor Peter Atkins, Dr. Richard Carrier and Dr. Michael Shermer) have already responded to my quiz (see comments 27, 29 and 33 below, respectively). I would like to thank them all for their prompt and courteous responses. ONE atheist (James Randi) has refused to respond (see comment 28 below). At least he answered my email, so I’ll give him credit for that.

I have also added the responses that I believe Professor Peter Singer and Professor Steven Pinker would give, on the basis of their published writings, from which I quote (see comments 64 and 65 below).

Comments
Hi everyone, I took markf's advice to heart and emailed the 25 most influential living atheists directly - well, most of them anyway. I couldn't figure out how to get through to Sam Harris in Facebook, and I'm not sure if my message reached Paul Kurtz or not. My email to David Sloan Wilson got a failure notice - something wrong with the address. I couldn't find an email for Kai Nielsen, so I forwarded a request to a colleague of his. I'd be very grateful if someone could get in touch with these individuals. As for P. Z. Myers, I'm sure someone has told him about this post by now, and in any case, his own views are clear enough. I've also extended the deadline by one day. And, so far, I've had one reply! Stay tuned...vjtorley
January 17, 2011
January
01
Jan
17
17
2011
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
#24 Housestreetroom Sorry - here is the link: http://mfinmoderation.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/new-born-babiesvj-torleys-challenge/markf
January 17, 2011
January
01
Jan
17
17
2011
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
markf @20, Your hyperlink didn't come through quite right (it's only highlighted).HouseStreetRoom
January 17, 2011
January
01
Jan
17
17
2011
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
Graham (#12) Thank you for your comments. You write:
To vjt: You have (deliberately?) focused exclusively on the newborn, complete with a cute, emotive picture.
Funny. I would not have described the picture as "cute." "Realistic" would have been my word. In fact, one reason why I chose that picture was because of its depiction of the reality of birth. I didn't want a smiling baby, and I didn't want to tug at heart-strings; a crying baby, straight out of its mother's womb, was what I wanted. You continue:
Your questions are motherhood stuff, no-one (heathens or otherwise) are suggesting newborn babies should be carelessly put to death.
1. Did I say they were suggesting that? Didn't I make it quite clear that I regarded P. Z. Myers as a good father? Did I at any stage impute to him the view that infanticide was OK? 2. By the way, why did you add the word "carelessly"? Methinks you do support infanticide in some cases. Which ones, Graham? You then add:
Of course they have rights (to protection etc), but even then they don't have the rights of an adult: would you allow a 5 yo to drive a car? vote? sign a contract?. We all acquire more rights as we mature.
This is irrelevant to my point. I'm not arguing that a newborn baby has the right to vote or drive - and besides, those are not natural human rights. I'm only interested in one right: do newborn babies have the right to life? Yes or no? It's a perfectly legitimate question, and I will ask it with bulldog-like tenacity until I get an answer. You conclude:
The issue is the slow acquisition of status before birth. Are you suggesting a zygote has the same rights as a newborn ? Nature (god?) is apparently exceedingly careless with humans at this stage.
This post is not about abortion, much as you'd like it to be. You talk about "Nature" or "god" - interesting that you spell God with a small "g" and His creation with a big "N"! - being careless. I suggest that you go back 200 years. In the 18th century, Buffon, the French naturalist, observed that "One third of the human race perishes before reaching the age of 28 months. Half the human race perishes before the age of eight years." What does that tell you about infant mortality back in those days? Fetal mortality may be high now, but in 200 years' time, it may not be.vjtorley
January 17, 2011
January
01
Jan
17
17
2011
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
Graham, PZ was the one who brought this up. VJ was just showing the rest of us, who don't normally read his tripe, his spewage.Joseph
January 17, 2011
January
01
Jan
17
17
2011
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
Graham #12 Driving a car, voting, and entering into contracts are privileges, not rights. We acquire more privileges as we mature, the number of rights we have is constant.UrbanMysticDee
January 17, 2011
January
01
Jan
17
17
2011
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
As a completely unknown atheist I have posted my answers here. This at least means that the large number of atheists who are banned from UD can post their response if they wish to.markf
January 16, 2011
January
01
Jan
16
16
2011
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PDT
Denyse #10 markf at 7, I’m always surprised who reads what. Maybe you can suggest an additional place to post q’s of interest. To ensure that all these people read the challenge? Very tricky - I would think the only way would be to mail them individually. Even then who is going to take time out to answer such a challenge from someone they have never heard of? There might be the odd person who could answer on behalf of one or two of them - but they have mostly been banned from UD!markf
January 16, 2011
January
01
Jan
16
16
2011
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT
@10 I don't believe he said babies weren't human. He said they weren't persons. Who knows what that really means. I would say babies are persons but it is obviously a very subjectively understood and poorly defined word. Are we upset about the newborn babies in Iraq and Afghanistan that have been killed by US forces? Is that what this is about?avocationist
January 16, 2011
January
01
Jan
16
16
2011
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
Pardon: Meleagarkairosfocus
January 16, 2011
January
01
Jan
16
16
2011
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
Meleager: Greetings! I saw your efforts in some phil forum threads recently, and would like to communicate with you. Do, please use the link through my handle LH column, and the contact link. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
January 16, 2011
January
01
Jan
16
16
2011
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
The last line from this article from the New York Times is interesting, especially coming from the NYT: 'This is the paradox of America’s unborn. No life is so desperately sought after, so hungrily desired, so carefully nurtured. And yet no life is so legally unprotected, and so frequently destroyed.' The Unborn Paradox By ROSS DOUTHAT Published: January 2, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/opinion/03douthat.html?_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212bornagain77
January 16, 2011
January
01
Jan
16
16
2011
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
Well, one thing you have to give PZ credit for: he's willing to follow his premise to the bitter, horrible end. So many atheistic materialists refuse to actually say what their philosophy necessarily dictates.Meleagar
January 16, 2011
January
01
Jan
16
16
2011
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
F/N: If I may quietly comment: 1 --> From conception, a baby is of the species Homo sapiens, and is plainly a distinct individual from its mother. Indeed, half the time, it is not even of the same sex as its mother. 2 --> So, a newly born baby is a human, and it is a being, as in: a human being. 3 --> Now, personhood is actually in its most relevant sense, a legal concept, as in a corporation is a legal person. A baby, at birth can inherit, and has been recognised as a legal person, at least in sane jurisdictions. 4 --> When living human beings are denied the status of being persons, they are being in effect outlawed -- again, in the strict legal sense -- so that they may be preyed upon or killed at will. 5 --> Sorry to have to say so, but that was the first step to what was done to Jews under Herr Schcklegruber's infamous regime. 6 --> We see here, precisely the sort of indefensible, prey upon the weak amorality that naturally flows from ideological evolutionary materialism, and which I remarked on here, from point 22 on, citing Plato's analysis and warning from 2,300 years ago, in 360 BC. ___________________ Sad to say, what we just saw from PZM, is the outworking of the corrosive nihilistic amorality that is inherent to evolutionary materialism. Hopefully, sufficient of us still have enough moral sensitivity to see the absurdity and the danger if this agenda is allowed to triumph in our civilisation. VJT, this is an important service, and I would like to see the responses and rationales of those 25 leading atheists. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
January 16, 2011
January
01
Jan
16
16
2011
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
To vjt: You have (deliberately?) focused exclusively on the newborn, complete with a cute, emotive picture. Your questions are motherhood stuff, no-one (heathens or otherwise) are suggesting newborn babies should be carelessly put to death. Of course they have rights (to protection etc), but even then they dont have the rights of an adult: would you allow a 5 yo to drive a car? vote? sign a contract?. We all acquire more rights as we mature. The issue is the slow acquisition of status before birth. Are you suggesting a zygote has the same rights as a newborn ? Nature (god?) is apparantly exceedingly careless with humans at this stage.Graham
January 16, 2011
January
01
Jan
16
16
2011
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
So babies are not human and women are meat factories. The vulgarity and inanity of this man has no bounds! I always greet his comments with a smile because I know that there is an underlying stupidity in them waiting to make me laugh.above
January 16, 2011
January
01
Jan
16
16
2011
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
markf at 7, I'm always surprised who reads what. Maybe you can suggest an additional place to post q's of interest. critter at 8, I take it you were never a child yourself? I've always thought that child needs are something any about which any adult human can speak (whether wisely or otherwise). We've all been there.O'Leary
January 16, 2011
January
01
Jan
16
16
2011
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
I never wanted or had children. So can not judge anyone else's decisions.critter
January 16, 2011
January
01
Jan
16
16
2011
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
vj Do you think any of those 25 read UD? Or have you posted the questions somewhere else?markf
January 16, 2011
January
01
Jan
16
16
2011
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
I don't get it. Where is the link between what PZ is claiming - which seems to relate to definitions of fully formed human and ideas of what constituted personhood - and the idea that it is OK to kill or harm babies? I agree that the moral status of babies is a vital issue but I don't see why that hinges on them being included in a definition of personhood or fully human. I guess I could put my question this way, why can't we believe that babies are sacred if we don't also include them in the definition of fully human person? Why can't we just have a demabe about that? I'm sorry but it just struck me as a rather uncharitable approach given rescent comments that included quotes like this: "As a consequence, critics of intelligent design engage in all forms of character assassination, ad hominem attacks, guilt by association, and demonization." The whole linking comments about pershonhood to killing babies is distasteful and the kind of thing we should avoid (lest we become more like our critics) - unless the person making those comments has made the link explicit themself.DrBot
January 16, 2011
January
01
Jan
16
16
2011
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
This video gets to the point fairly dramatically: Born Alive – Abortion Survivor Gianna Jessen http://www.faithandfacts.com/abortion/born-alive-abortion-survivor-gianna-jessen/bornagain77
January 16, 2011
January
01
Jan
16
16
2011
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
null, Hahahaha! To paraphase the late, great Fred G. Sanford, Pee Zee makes me wish birth control was retroactive.kornbelt888
January 16, 2011
January
01
Jan
16
16
2011
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
a.yes b.yes c.yes d.yes e.yes Of related interest What is a Human Embryo? (Is It Human?) - Michael Egnor http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/tantalus_primes_nobel_prize_in042411.html NCSE's Joshua Rosenau on Abortion and Murder - Michael Egnor http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/ncses_joshua_rosenau_my_abhorr042101.html Isaiah 49:15-16 Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee. Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me. Lamentations 2:11 My eyes fail because of tears, My spirit is greatly troubled; My heart is poured out on the earth Because of the destruction of the daughter of my people, When little ones and infants faint In the streets of the city.bornagain77
January 16, 2011
January
01
Jan
16
16
2011
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
You think PZ Myers just has a strange view of babies? With emphasis added. Extract a fertilized egg and set it in a beaker by your nightstand, and wait for a baby to crawl out. Won't happen. A uterus and attendant physiological and behavioral meat construct, i.e., woman, is also an amazing piece of biotechnology that is a necessary component of the developmental process. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/conservative_self-identifies_w.php He's a sweet-talker, that one.nullasalus
January 16, 2011
January
01
Jan
16
16
2011
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
(a) Yes, unless you are talking about PZ Myers, then I would make an exception :cool: (b) Yes, unless you are talking about PZ Myers, then I would make an exception :cool: (c) Yes, unless you are talking about PZ Myers, then I would make an exception :cool: (d) No, some humans are not capable and cannot refrain. But the others have a duty to protect newborns from them. (e) Yes, although I would say it isn't always wrong to kill an adultJoseph
January 16, 2011
January
01
Jan
16
16
2011
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
I submit the same questions ought to be put to PZ's children. They have standing not as atheists but as: 1) the object of PZ's assertion that their specific births were arbitrary and they specifically weren't fully human, and also because 2) PZ opened the door to this line of questioning when he specifically cited them as evidence of his assertions.Charles
January 16, 2011
January
01
Jan
16
16
2011
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply